Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1887-10-18

10 Inc OOnQ are TWO IOlQ: flTsI, GQ5E II
cannot be required at all; second, the
statutory conditions which it Is required
the bond shall contain are such as are not
authorized, and sre in violation of con-
stitutional rights and guarantees. Now
1t is to be noted that the applicant has
never given the bond, and is not seeking
relief from the enforcement Of penalties
for its violated conditions or shy one OF
them. His refusal absolutely to give the
bond is the cause Of his troubles.
Upon the question of the power of the
Legislature to regulate the WHISKY traffic
we hsve found no difference of opinion
either in the decisions of courts or the
standard authorities upon the subject
All agree that the Legislature has the
power absolutely TO prohibit them. If II
can prohibit them entirely then it follows
inevitably as corollary that it can regu-
late the mode, manner and circumstances
in and under which they may and shall
be conducted and carried on, and may
surround the right with such restrictions,
conditions and limitations as may appear
judicious. It cannot be questioned but
that one taking out license to engage
in the traffic Of liquor can be required to
keep an orderly house. He can be re-
quired to give bond with securities that
he will keep an orderly house, and vio-
lstion of the conditions of his bond will
not only subject him to criminal prose
cution, but also to civil action for
damages on the part of those injured by
his failure to comply with said conditions.
This doctrine was held by our Supreme
court in GoldstiCker vs.. Ford, 81 Texas,
$50, which was suit to recover the
penalty upon the bond of retail liquor
dealer under provisions of an act ap-
proved April 4, 1881 Gen. Laws Reg.
Sess. 18th Leg, p 113J, which in its
fourth section, STIMULATING the conditions
OF said bond, is in many respects identi-
cal almost with conditions complained of
as provided for the bond in the case We
are considering. Relstor contends that
if it be conceded that the state has
the right to regulate saloons,
and IS part Of the regulation to require 8
bond as condition precedent TO the
granting OF the license and the prosecu-
ton Of the business; still it has no right
to and cannot require bond with condi-
tions, some of which it is claimed are in
valid and unconstitutional. This is 8
question upon which applicant is
not to be heard, and we do not
feel called upon to decide it. 1t
is stated in the petition that applicant re-
fuses the bond, the main objection being
that the state has no right to exact of him
the execution of any bond. Now, he may
never execute the bond, and
the matter he complains of may
never occur as far as he is concerned.
On the case he here presents he is not
entitled TO have these questions, which
may never arise, decided in advance OF his
execution of said bond. The application
for writ OF hsbeas corpus is refused.
White, P j.
W. N. Hickey VS.. Thomas Hickey; ap-
peal from Eastland. This suit was in re-
gard to the ownership OF lot of cord
wood. 1t was not competent for appel
liant to prove the acts and declarations of
Cunningham (from whom appellee" pur-
chased the wood, tending to show that
he recognized the wood as belonging to
appellant in January prior to the sale Of
the same by Cunningham to appellee in
the following February. a party who can
call witness shall not be permitted to
prove his declarations. 20 Tex, 3157.
The declarations of vendor to impeach
the title of his venGee are not ordinarily
when it is not shown that the
vendee had notice of them. 20 Tex.
"a The court instructed the jury that
they might find actual damages for appel
lee upon his plea in e-copYention.
This was error. There is not
3 particle of evidence in
the record before Us which authorizes
recovery of actual damages by appellee.
Because the verdict and judgment for
$50 actual damages in reconVention is
not warranted by the evidence the cause
Is reversed and remsnded. Willson,J.
D. A. Pickle ct 81 vs.. Mrs S. F. Abbott;
appeal from Smith. This cause was dis
missed from the county court on the
ground that the appeal to the county
court was not perfected in time required
1y law. The case was tried in Justice
court, June rs, appeal bond was fled
July 8, within ten days after Judgment.
On October %, the justice sent the
to the county court, upon the
irst day of the second term, with the
!fidavit of the justice, to the effect that
Ifter the bond was fled by him he mis- |
placed it, or lost it, and because of his |
allure to find it the transcript was not |
ooner sent up. Held: The court erred |
n Diminishing the appeal. This question
vas fully discussed in the case of Spann
g. Jones, decided st the last Austin
ERIN. Objection is raised at the
insolvency Of the sureties on the /
ppeal bond. When the bond is ap-
'roVed by the justice, neither the County
curt nor this court can inquire into the
olvency Of the sureties. For the errors
ointed out the case is reversed and re-
handed. Hurt, J.
Perrill & Fox VS.. Elsas, Keller & Co.:
ppeal from Hill. This was suit to
ecover & debt of 1924 IS, the considera-
ion being merchandise; S101 16 became
ne December %, 1886, 1928 60 would be
ne December 30, 1886, AppeIlees filed
nit on the 9TH of December, 1886, before
he debt became due; at the time of the
Institution of the suit sfidavit and bond
Or attachment were flied, and the writ
7as levied upon stock of merchandise
elonging to appellants. Appellants filed
demurrer to the petition, because the
ebt sued upon was not due when suit
las commenced, nor was there sn,amended
elton alleging the same to be due st the
ate Of trial. This demurrer was over
lnG nd -, I'M |